Computer programming is an essential skill for engineers and becoming important for non-engineers, as well, in our rapidly developing modem technological society. As technology increases in complexity the demand for those with programming skills will increase. This places a need to educate and train students the “logic” of programming.
Heretofore, computer programming has been taught much as a new language is taught. As with any language, the syntax of the language is important in conveying meaning. Thus, in the English language (and other languages), the first letter of the first word in a sentence is capitalized. Further, a “period” ends a sentence. A “comma” separates phrases, and a “semi-colon” separates clauses. However, because human languages are used to convey information from one human to another, syntax errors may be forgiven with the reader still able to understand the meaning of the writing. A writing may still effectively “convey” the message to a reader despite syntactical or grammatical errors.
However, with computer programming, one communicates with a computer or a machine, which is very unforgiving. Any error in syntax will be met by the compiler issuing the dreaded “syntax error” with the machine giving the programmer sparse details of the location of the error and what the error is. It is only after all the syntax errors, memory allocation errors, etc. are resolved that the computer would even attempt to understand the content or the logic of the program. This is a deterrent to learning the logical thinking aspect of programming.
In an article entitled: “Task Blocks: Tangible Interfaces for Creative Exploration” by Michael Terry of Everyday Computing Lab, GVU Center, College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Ga., posted at http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fce/ecl/projects/openEnded/pubs/taskBlocks-chi2001.pdf, the author suggests using Task Blocks that use physical blocks to represent computational functions. The user can string Task Blocks together to create a “pipeline” that sequentially manipulates data. The author does not describe in detail the structure of each Task Block but the description suggests that each Task Block is a computational device. In addition, each Task Block can be attached to a control block to vary the effect of each individual Task Block in the pipeline, further supporting the conclusion that each Task Block is a computational device. The use of physical computational devices that are connected together is expensive and complex.
In an article entitled: “Tangible Computation Bricks: Building-Blocks for Physical Microworlds” by Timothy S. McNerney of the MIT Media Lab, posted at http://xenia.media.mit.edu/˜mcnerney/tangible-comp-bricks-review2.2.pdf, the author suggests using Lego parts each embedded with a microprocessor (called Bricks). Further, each such Brick has an ISO “smart card” connector on the top and bottom that allows communication with other Bricks. In addition, the use of a microprocessor in the Brick allows the user to “get under the hood” to reprogram a Brick if the correct “behavior” is not available in that Brick. Finally, each of the Bricks does not permit any branching activity. The use of a microprocessor in each Brick is expensive and allowing users to “get under the hood” results in a complex design. Further, since one must know how to “program” the Brick to be able to “get under the hood”, the toy is clearly not a toy designed to teach programming. Further, having a separate “smart card” connector in addition to the mechanical connector results in difficulty in stacking. Finally, not having branching capability is a self-evident drawback.
Stacking block products such as Lego are well known in the art. Lego has produced a toy (called Lego Mindstorms) that consists of stacking blocks, in which one of the blocks contains a microprocessor, which can be programmed to control sensors and motors connected to other blocks. However, the microprocessor in the Lego Mindstorms toy must be programmed by a separate computer, requiring one to input code. This leads back to the requirement of leaning programming in order to program the Lego Mindstorms product.
Finally, in the fall of 2000, Lego introduced a product called the MyBot. The core of the product is a microcomputer that contains technology developed in consultation with MIT. The microcomputer is programmed by attaching a combination of “smart bricks.” Depending on the “smart” activity and the identity of the bricks selected, the creation exhibits its own distinctive behavior. This appears to be a version of the “Computation Brick” developed at MIT described heretofore, and would have the same limitations and deficiencies previously discussed. Further, it appears that the MyBot products is no longer on the market. It appears that ultimately this product was not intended to teach programming, but merely to stimulate very young children with the different combinations of actions possible in using MyBot.
Thus, the present invention solves the foregoing problem and seeks to teach the logic of programming without requiring the user to learn the syntax of programming through an inexpensive, fun and hands-on toy.